As the former vice president releases his memoir, it's useful to recall the many reasons why the vast majority of Americans disapproved of his tenure

When Vice President Dick Cheney left office, his approval rating stood at a staggeringly low 13 percent. Few political figures in history have been so reviled. As his memoir, In My Time, hits bookstores today, and he does a series of friendly interviews in the press, some Americans with short memories might wonder, "Why is it that so few were willing to endorse his performance in office?"

This is a reminder.

THE WAR IN IRAQ

President Bush bears ultimate responsibility for the War in Iraq, as do the members of Congress who voted for it. But Dick Cheney's role in the run-up to war was uniquely irresponsible and mendacious. And after the invasion he contributed to the early dysfunction on the ground. Even Iraq War supporters should rue his involvement.

The most succinct statement of his misdeeds comes from "The People Vs. Dick Cheney," a 2007 article by Wil S. Hylton. The piece recounts how Cheney undercut the CIA by instructing subordinates in that agency to stovepipe raw intelligence directly to his office. He also worked with Donald Rumsfeld to establish an alternative intelligence agency within the Pentagon. Both of these actions directly contributed to the faulty information that informed the decision to go to war.

Hylton then lays out his most powerful argument:

(1) During the several months preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, and thereafter, the vice president became aware that no certain evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a fact articulated in several official documents, including: (a) A report by the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, concluding that "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has--or will--establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities." (b) A National Intelligence Estimate, compiled by the nation's intelligence agencies, admitting to "little speciﬁc information" about chemical weapons in Iraq. (c) A later section of the same NIE, admitting "low confidence" that Saddam Hussein "would engage in clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland," and equally "low confidence" that he would "share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa'ida." (d) An addendum by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, asserting that Hussein's quest for yellowcake uranium in Africa was "highly dubious" and that his acquisition of certain machine parts, considered by some to be evidence of a nuclear program, were "not clearly linked to a nuclear end use." (e) A report by the United States Department of Energy, stating that the machinery in question was "poorly suited" for nuclear use.

(2) Despite these questions and uncertainties, and having full awareness of them, the vice president nevertheless proceeded to misrepresent the facts in his public statements, claiming that there was no doubt about the existence of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq and that a full-scale nuclear program was known to exist, including: (a) March 17, 2002: "We know they have biological and chemical weapons." (b) March 19, 2002: "We know they are pursuing nuclear weapons." (c) March 24, 2002: "He is actively pursuing nuclear weapons." (d) May 19, 2002: "We know he's got chemical and biological...we know he's working on nuclear." (e) August 26, 2002: "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons... Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." (f) March 16, 2003: "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

(3) At the same time, despite overwhelming skepticism within the government of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda--resulting in the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission that "no credible evidence" for such a link existed, and the CIA's determination that Hussein "did not have a relationship" with Al Qaeda--the vice president continued to insist that the relationship had been confirmed, including: (a) December 2, 2002: "His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists." (b) January 30, 2003: "His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us." (c) March 16, 2003: "We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization." (d) September 14, 2003: "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons." (e) October 10, 2003: "He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda--providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs." (f) January 9, 2004: "Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services...have worked together on a number of occasions." (g) January 22, 2004: "There's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government" (h) June 18, 2004: "There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming."

The piece also charges that "as the war devolved into occupation, the vice president again sabotaged the democratic system, developing back channels into the Coalition Provisional Authority, a body not under his purview, to remove some of the most effective staff and replace them with his own loyal supplicants -- undercutting America's best effort at war in order to expand his own power."

TORTURE

In December 2008, Dick Cheney acknowledged what many had long suspected or known: that he was instrumental in initiating the Bush Administration interrogation tactic in which detainees were blindfolded, strapped to a board, and held down as water was pored into their cavities until their lungs began to fill up with it. The intent was to trick the detainees into believing that they would drown. Almost sounds like a mock execution, doesn't it? Christopher Hitchens gamely subjected himself to the procedure, knowing he could stop it at any time. His conclusion: "If waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture."

ILLEGALLY SPYING ON INNOCENT AMERICANS

Barton Gellman, who wrote one of the definitive books on Cheney, gives the background in a Time magazine piece:

Cheney had devised, and Bush approved, an NSA operation to monitor the
phone calls and emails of U.S. citizens without a warrant, part of which
later became known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program. After more
than two years of going along with "the vice president's special
program," the Justice Department concluded that parts of it were
illegal. Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey later told Congress, and
authoritative sources confirmed privately last week, that Ashcroft
decided on March 4, 2004 to stop certifying the surveillance as lawful
unless the White House scaled it back.

Cheney admits he was behind the spying in his memoir. But Gellman makes a compelling case that he lies about a confrontation with an ailing John Ashcroft to make himself look better. In any case, it is beyond dispute that at Dick Cheney's urging, the federal government spied on millions of non-terrorist Americans without a warrant. And that Cheney wanted the program to continue even after it was declared illegal.

HALLIBURTON

After his initial stints in government under Republican Administrations, including time as George H.W. Bush's Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney entered the private sector, where he used contacts he made during his time in government to enrich himself. All told, he would earn more than $44 million from Halliburton.

Cheney was hired by Halliburton in 1995, not long after he went on a
fly-fishing trip in New Brunswick, Canada, with several corporate
moguls. After Cheney had said good night, the others began talking about
Halliburton's need for a new C.E.O. Why not Dick? He had virtually no
business experience, but he had valuable relationships with very
powerful people. Lawrence Eagleburger, the Secretary of State in the
first Bush Administration, became a Halliburton board member after
Cheney joined the company. He told me that Cheney was the firm's
"outside man," the person who could best help the company expand its
business around the globe. Cheney was close to many world leaders,
particularly in the Persian Gulf, a region central to Halliburton's
oil-services business. Cheney and his wife, Lynne, were so friendly with
Prince Bandar, the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., that the Prince had
invited the Cheney family to his daughter's wedding. (Cheney did not
attend.) "Dick was good at opening doors," Eagleburger said. "I don't
mean that pejoratively. He had contacts from his former life, and he
used them effectively."

After Cheney enriched himself by exploiting contacts with various corrupt Arab autocrats that he made while drawing a public salary, he returned to public life as vice-president. Halliburton donated to his campaign, and got numerous lucrative contracts during the Bush Administration's tenure, even as it was discovered to have overcharged the U.S. for prior services rendered.

There's also this:

The United States had concluded that Iraq, Libya, and Iran supported
terrorism and had imposed strict sanctions on them. Yet during Cheney's
tenure at Halliburton the company did business in all three countries.
In the case of Iraq, Halliburton legally evaded U.S. sanctions by
conducting its oil-service business through foreign subsidiaries that
had once been owned by Dresser. With Iran and Libya, Halliburton used
its own subsidiaries. The use of foreign subsidiaries may have helped
the company to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

In some ways, the Libya and Iran transactions were consistent with
Cheney's views. He had long opposed economic sanctions as a political
tool, even against South Africa's apartheid regime. During the 2000
campaign, however, Cheney said he viewed Iraq differently. "I had a firm
policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that
were supposedly legal," he told ABC News. But, under Cheney's watch, two
foreign subsidiaries of Dresser sold millions of dollars' worth of oil
services and parts to Saddam's regime. The transactions were not
illegal, but they were politically suspect. The deals occurred under the
United Nations Oil-for-Food program, at a time when Saddam Hussein
chose which companies his government would work with. Corruption was
rampant. It may be that it was simply Halliburton's expertise that
attracted Saddam's regime, but a United Nations diplomat with the
Oil-for-Food program has doubts. "Most American companies were
blacklisted," he said. "It's rather surprising to find Halliburton doing
business with Saddam. It would have been very much a senior-level
decision, made by the regime at the top." Cheney has said that he
personally directed the company to stop doing business with Saddam.
Halliburton's presence in Iraq ended in February, 2000.

There is no better example of the problematic "revolving door" relationship between government and private enterprise than Dick Cheney and Halliburton.

AHMED CHALABI

Once again, Hylton makes the case against Cheney most succinctly:

(1) During the months preceding the March 2003
invasion of Iraq, the vice president, acting personally and through his
subordinates, granted special access to the Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi,
relying on Chalabi for intelligence about Saddam Hussein's alleged
weapons of mass destruction, despite an outstanding warrant for
Chalabi's arrest on charges of bank fraud in the nation of Jordan, grave
concerns from the CIA about Chalabi's credibility, and a 2002 British
assessment that Chalabi was "a convicted fraudster."

(2) As the initial stage of the war concluded and
Chalabi's claims proved false, the vice president nevertheless continued
privately to champion Chalabi as a leader for the new Iraqi government,
ignoring a litany of troubling accusations and events, including: (a) May 19, 2004: The Department of Defense discontinues monthly payments to Chalabi, pending charges of fraud. (b) May 20, 2004: U.S. troops, along with Iraqi forces, storm Chalabi's home, seizing documents and computers for a criminal probe. (c) June 2004: The New York Times reports that Chalabi has disclosed U.S. secrets to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

(3) When an employee of the Coalition Provisional
Authority named Thomas Warrick voiced concerns about Chalabi to his
superiors, the vice president intervened to demand that Warrick be
fired, causing Warrick's unique contributions to the
occupation--including a series of prescient written warnings about the
rise of insurgency--to be lost, and the nation's ability to function at
war compromised. (4) As late as November 2005, the vice president
continued to offer public support and safe harbor to Chalabi, inviting
him to visit the White House and providing personal welcome to a known
criminal. In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to
his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government,
to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the
people of the United States.

INSTRUMENTAL IN DETAINING INNOCENTS FOR YEARS ON END

In "A Different Understanding with the President," Barton Gellman relates how early post-9/11 decisions about detainees were made:

Just past the Oval Office, in the private dining room overlooking the South Lawn, Vice President Cheney joined President Bush at a round parquet table they shared once a week. Cheney brought a four-page text, written in strict secrecy by his lawyer. He carried it back out with him after lunch. In less than an hour, the document traversed a West Wing circuit that gave its words the power of command. It changed hands four times, according to witnesses, with emphatic instructions to bypass staff review. When it returned to the Oval Office, in a blue portfolio embossed with the presidential seal, Bush pulled a felt-tip pen from his pocket and signed without sitting down. Almost no one else had seen the text.

Cheney's proposal had become a military order from the commander in chief. Foreign terrorism suspects held by the United States were stripped of access to any court -- civilian or military, domestic or foreign. They could be confined indefinitely without charges and would be tried, if at all, in closed "military commissions." "What the hell just happened?" Secretary of State Colin L. Powell demanded, a witness said, when CNN announced the order that evening, Nov. 13, 2001. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, incensed, sent an aide to find out. Even witnesses to the Oval Office signing said they did not know the vice president had played any part.

We now know that the U.S. government held innocent people at Guantanamo Bay for years on end, either because no one bothered to confirm their innocence, or because even after confirming it the government was reluctant to release them. Cheney, by insisting that the government had the power to hold any person for any period of time without any way for them to challenge their innocence, is directly culpable for these injustices.

RADICAL VIEW OF EXECUTIVE POWER

Whole books have been written about Dick Cheney's decades long project to give to the presidency powers in excess of anything the founding generation intended. Charlie Savage, who authored one of those books, summed up the history in this interview:

Dick Cheney has been the driving force behind the Bush
administration's systematic and highly successful project to expand
presidential power, a push that was articulated on their first day in
office, long before 9/11, and whose first battleground was the fight
over whether Cheney would have to comply with open-government laws that
mandated that he tell Congress and the public whom his energy task force
had met with.

Cheney's files from his days as Gerald Ford's chief of staff in the
post-Watergate/Vietnam moment show the origins of this agenda. Day upon
day, the Ford White House was confronting the Church Committee's
investigations of intelligence abuses and a Congress that was determined
to re-impose checks and balances on the "imperial" presidency. This
seemed outrageous from Cheney's vantage point and he spent the next
three decades trying, without much success at first, to roll back the
changes of the 1970s and to restore presidential power to the level it
had briefly, aberrationally, reached before Nixon fell. During his
decade in the House of Representatives, he continuously argued with his
colleagues that they ought to be giving the president more flexibility,
not less, especially in matters of national security and foreign affairs
- not just during Iran-Contra, but throughout that decade.

As Secretary of Defense to the first President Bush, he urged George
H.W. Bush to launch the Gulf War without going to Congress for
permission, like Truman had done, though his advice was rejected. But
the second President Bush adopted Cheney's view that they ought to use
their time in office to strengthen presidential power as an end to
itself - to leave the office stronger than it had been when they
inherited it - and that is what they set out to do. On a day-to-day
level in the White House bureaucracy, Cheney's top aide David Addington
has been the most important bureaucratic force driving this policy.

I'll bet you didn't know Cheney urged that the first Gulf War be waged without Congressional permission.

UNPRINCIPLED EFFORTS TO MAXIMIZE PERSONAL POWER

To review one example among many (here's another), I give you over to Jack Balkin:

Vice President Dick Cheney and his consigliere David Addington have long been associated with the doctrine of the "Unitary Executive,"
the notion that all executive functions are vested in the President of
the United States of American and hence that the President has the right
to direct all executive officers, who, in turn are required to obey his
orders. All except the Vice-President, apparently. The New York Times reports that Cheney now takes the position that he is not bound by an executive order
requiring all entities within the executive branch to report on how
they obtain and use classified information because he is not just
another part of the executive branch.

Yes, the vice-president claimed, opportunistically and absurdly, that he should be treated as part of the legislative branch... when it was convenient. "It is by now obvious, if any further proof were necessary, that Cheney
and Addington have never been particularly interested in defending
constitutional principles," Balkin concluded. "They do not seek to preserve executive power.
They seek to preserve their own power. They discarded the canard of the
unitary executive as soon as it became inconvenient."

CONCLUSION

Dick Cheney was a self-aggrandizing criminal who used his knowledge as a Washington insider to subvert both informed public debate about matters of war and peace and to manipulate presidential decisionmaking, sometimes in ways that angered even George W. Bush.

After his early years of public service, he capitalized on connections he made while being paid by taxpayers to earn tens of millions of dollars presiding over Halliburton. While there, he did business with corrupt Arab autocrats, including some in countries that were enemies of the United States. Upon returning to government, he advanced a theory of the executive that is at odds with the intentions of the founders, successfully encouraged the federal government to illegally spy on innocent Americans, passed on to the public false information about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and became directly complicit in a regime of torture for which he should be in jail.

About the Author

Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional nonfiction.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

The new version of Apple’s signature media software is a mess. What are people with large MP3 libraries to do?

When the developer Erik Kemp designed the first metadata system for MP3s in 1996, he provided only three options for attaching text to the music. Every audio file could be labeled with only an artist, song name, and album title.

Kemp’s system has since been augmented and improved upon, but never replaced. Which makes sense: Like the web itself, his schema was shipped, good enough,and an improvement on the vacuum which preceded it. Those three big tags, as they’re called, work well with pop and rock written between 1960 and 1995. This didn’t prevent rampant mislabeling in the early days of the web, though, as anyone who remembers Napster can tell you. His system stumbles even more, though, when it needs to capture hip hop’s tradition of guest MCs or jazz’s vibrant culture of studio musicianship.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A leading neuroscientist who has spent decades studying creativity shares her research on where genius comes from, whether it is dependent on high IQ—and why it is so often accompanied by mental illness.

As a psychiatrist and neuroscientist who studies creativity, I’ve had the pleasure of working with many gifted and high-profile subjects over the years, but Kurt Vonnegut—dear, funny, eccentric, lovable, tormented Kurt Vonnegut—will always be one of my favorites. Kurt was a faculty member at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop in the 1960s, and participated in the first big study I did as a member of the university’s psychiatry department. I was examining the anecdotal link between creativity and mental illness, and Kurt was an excellent case study.

He was intermittently depressed, but that was only the beginning. His mother had suffered from depression and committed suicide on Mother’s Day, when Kurt was 21 and home on military leave during World War II. His son, Mark, was originally diagnosed with schizophrenia but may actually have bipolar disorder. (Mark, who is a practicing physician, recounts his experiences in two books, The Eden Express and Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So, in which he reveals that many family members struggled with psychiatric problems. “My mother, my cousins, and my sisters weren’t doing so great,” he writes. “We had eating disorders, co-dependency, outstanding warrants, drug and alcohol problems, dating and employment problems, and other ‘issues.’ ”)

Jim Gilmore joins the race, and the Republican field jockeys for spots in the August 6 debate in Cleveland.

After decades as the butt of countless jokes, it’s Cleveland’s turn to laugh: Seldom have so many powerful people been so desperate to get to the Forest City. There’s one week until the Republican Party’s first primary debate of the cycle on August 6, and now there’s a mad dash to get into the top 10 and qualify for the main event.

With former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore filing papers to run for president on July 29, there are now 17 “major” candidates vying for the GOP nomination, though that’s an awfully imprecise descriptor. It takes in candidates with lengthy experience and a good chance at the White House, like Scott Walker and Jeb Bush; at least one person who is polling well but is manifestly unserious, namely Donald Trump; and people with long experience but no chance at the White House, like Gilmore. Yet it also excludes other people with long experience but no chance at the White House, such as former IRS Commissioner Mark Everson.